: Posts on “Academic Issues”

Sometimes just when you think there’s no hope for progress, something unexpected turns up. A group at Brandon University in Manitoba is fighting to have a Men’s Collective organization established and create for their constituency a seat on the Brandon University Student Union council. Men make up 30% of the student population at Brandon. Issues effecting university aged men are matters of life and death, like testicular cancer which greatly effects young men, bullying on campus and the fact that young men are vastly more likely then young women to take dangerous jobs. An organization to represent a minority group with crucial issues to tackle makes sense, doesn’t it? Not quite, according to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press

Breen made his motion at the Brandon University Students’ Union (BUSU) annual meeting last month. One elected council member set the tone of debate, scoffing that Breen’s group would be nothing but a “pornography and cigar club.” As a man, he huffed, he didn’t require representation. Other speakers were miffed and simply couldn’t see the need. The motion was defeated.

At another forum, a female professor could barely tolerate hearing Breen’s reasons for starting a Men’s Collective. “She was saying that men do not have need of representation, that we have historically been the oppressors, that we have no position of disadvantage,” the fourth-year geology student recalled.

While the position on council still hasn’t happened, the group has been allowed to exist, grudgingly, being given $400, less then 10% that awareded to the Women’s Collective.

The Winnipeg Free Press article – breaking from the general journalist’s predilection to mock anything remotely touching men’s issues, strongly supports the need for a well funded Men’s Collective

“If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there, too,” Baumeister said in a 2007 address to the American Psychological Association.

Men make up the majority of the homeless and imprisoned. They fill riskier jobs. In the U.S., 93 per cent of people killed on the job are men.

It’s higher in the military. Of 108 Canadian soldiers killed in the Afghanistan war, 107 were men. Men also die earlier, and are nearly 10 times more likely than women to commit suicide.

But the news from Brandon University is mostly positive. The incident – which was featured on CBC radio – has sparked considerable debate, with mostly supportive commentators, saying things on their university forum which are music to my ears:

The collective was not started as a “1/2 joke”, in any way shape or form. There are issues which affect men, both medical, social and psychological, which we feel are under-represented as a whole at the University. The BUSU AGM was an effort to gain us a Commissioner position, similar to the Women’s Commissioner. For right or wrong, this motion was defeated. We are hoping to become a driving force for equality and fairness, and would hope that we have the support of the community in this endeavor.

and

it was pointed out that some people on BUSU thought it would be a “boy’s club” that was against women. I find it disconcerting that men “must” automatically be sexist boors when they get together. Sounds like a sexist attitude to me.

As for the decision to deny the men’s collective representation, BUSU has shown itself to be gender biased. I’m sure in short order they will change their mind once they realize they have opened themselves up to a challenge at the Human Rights Commission. There is a Women’s collective which has representation, and the men are not allowed. When it comes down to it, the only reason they are being denied is based on their gender.

That is illegal and unconstitutional.

as well as

The gender of those on BUSU Council makes no difference. It’s not the President’s job to represent male students there. It’s not the Arts Commissioner’s job to represent male students there. However, it IS the job of the Women’s Commissioner to represent female students there. And judging by the conduct of some BUSU Council members, I would say that men are underrepresented on Council.

Finally, we’re not creating the Men’s Collective for ourselves, and we’re not pushing for the Commissioner because we need it. Guess what. I don’t feel discriminated against, either (or at least I didn’t before the AGM vote). We’re doing this for the faceless, nameless kid somewhere in Darrach or McMaster who gets beaten by his father and doesn’t know who to turn to. You and I might not have problems that require a Men’s Commissioner, but somebody out there does.

Good work Brandon University Men’s Collective! Should you happen to stumble on my modest blog, please contact me at justin.trottier@gmail.com. I think we have a lot to talk about

On today’s show we continue a three part interview with Dr. Warren Farrell, men’s movement leader. We’ll focus on fathers rights, the boy crisis, violence against men and women and discrimination in the legal system. First question on the agenda: do children really need their father

Dr. Warren Farrell is roundly regarded as a leading figure in the men’s movement, or better, the gender transition movement. His unique background and expertise give him a perfect vantage point from which to address men’s issues. Dr. Farrell has taught gender issues and psychology at several institutes, including Brooklyn College, Georgetown University, American University and the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

As a young graduate, Dr. Farrell was a major player in the feminist movement, especially in creating men’s groups across the US, then becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Director of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Farrell was featured in media including the New York Times, the Today Show and the Phil Donahue Show, leading to his authorship of the pro-feminist book The Liberated Man.

As we discuss, in the late 80s, Farrell became increasingly convinced that feminism was rather one sided and that men’s issues were being neglected, leading to deep research on a variety of topics long taken for granted, and the publication of his landmark The Myth of Male Power, which touched on a diverse cross section of issues.

On today’s show I begin a three part interview with Dr. Warren Farrell mens’ movement leader. Before that, our regular news commentator and pundit Mark defends Denis Prager’s take on the politics of sex in marriage.

My conversation with Dr. Warren Farrell ended up being so engrossing that in order to cover all the topics we wished to explore we decided to go long. The discussion will be released in three parts, on today’s episode 2, episode 3 on January 30 and as one of two interview segments on episode 4. I hope you enjoy them all.

Dr. Warren Farrell is roundly regarded as a leading figure in the men’s movement, or better, the gender transition movement. His unique background and expertise give him a perfect vantage point from which to address men’s issues. Dr. Farrell has taught gender issues and psychology at several institutes, including Brooklyn College, Georgetown University, American University and the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

As a young graduate, Dr. Farrell was a major player in the feminist movement, especially in creating men’s groups across the US, then becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Director of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Farrell was featured in media including the New York Times, the Today Show and the Phil Donahue Show, leading to his authorship of the pro-feminist book The Liberated Man.

As we discuss, in the late 80s, Farrell became increasingly convinced that feminism was rather one sided and that men’s issues were being neglected, leading to deep research on a variety of topics long taken for granted, and the publication of his landmark The Myth of Male Power, which touched on a diverse cross section of issues.

However, I think at this early stage in the production of the Pendulum Effect, since many of our listeners, perhaps being in a similar position to Dr. Farrell prior to his conversion, shall we say, to a more balanced perspective on gender, might appreciate a sort of broad primer to get a feel for the nature of the issues. I’ve therefore asked Dr. Farrell on the show today to speak on his groundbreaking book The Myth of Male Power.

In case anyone thinks I’m exaggerating how bad it’s gotten to be a member of the “patriarchy” in this politically correct multiculturally obsessed society, consider the recent motion passed by the Carleton University Student Administration to stop donating to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The reason is that the disease apparently affects “only white people, and primarily men” and they should only fund charities that “will serve their diverse communities.” Let’s remember that universities across Canada support breast cancer charities, despite the fact that they already get 40 times as much funding as prostate cancer and both diseases have roughly equal rates of mortality.

In addition to funding a Womyn’s Centre with 2 paid staff members, the organization that supposedly concerns themselves with giving only to charities that represent the diversity of their students has donated to, among other places

1. Hopewell Eating Disorder Support Centre at their 2007 Charity Ball. Only 10% of adults with eating disorders are male and Hopewell apparently doesn’t even help them, referring them elsewhere.

It is not uncommon for boys and men to develop eating disorders. About 10% of adults with eating disorders are male, and this number is higher amongst adolescents.

If you are a male experiencing an eating disorder, check these sites out for information and support resources:

2. Harmony House Women’s Shelter at their 2003 Charity Ball, despite the fact that men are equally likely to be battered by women. Wouldn’t affirmative action suggest they fund the rarely funded mens’ shelters?

The funding was eventually re-instated and the relevant individuals thankfully resigned. Here are some of the poignant comments that contributed to this remarkably rare success.

I for one would like to thank CUSA. They are among the first to openly display sexist and racist attitudes becoming common in today’s “PC” world. This is a wakeup call for those among us who truly value equality and freedom. While we fight for the rights of others and tip toe around issues possibly offensives to non white males, we are loosing our own place in society. Respect is deserved by all.

What scares me is the callousness of this decision by the CUSA, regardless of the back tracking, regardless of their heartfelt apology, I’m worried. Is this how this generation sees white males? Stick us on an ice flow?

>> They apologized..and they made ammends.

No, they have not. At no point has anyone from CUSA admitted that they deliberately tabled and passed a flagrantly racist and sexist resolution. They’ve apologized because it brought negative publicity, they’ve apologized because it appeared to damage CF. But they’ve wholly, totally, completely missed the entire point regarding why people are upset. Of course, they’ve missed the point because they are not, in fact, sorry about having demonstrated that they are racist, sexist jerks. That aside, if it was racism to anyone other than white people, or sexism toward women instead of men, would anyone be saying “well, if they apologize we’ll forget about it.” I don’t think so. They’d want a head on a stick. I’ll forgive them when they’ve been fully subjected to the whole treatment to which they would subject a person who suggests that breast cancer charities should not be supported because it primarily affects women, or that AIDS charities should not be supported because it primarily affects black Africans and Asian sex-trade workers. Honestly, I don’t care about their apology. A forced apology is of no value.

But even if it were true that only white males got CF, what of it? We raise money for breast cancer even though it is primarily a female disease. We raise money for Tay-Sachs, even thought it strikes almost exclusively Jews. We raise money for AIDS, even though it disproportionately affects gays and blacks. That’s because we raise money to save people — not tribes.